source/machinist for ball bearing nut rollers

Ken Metcalf · Post by **Ken Metcalf** » 27 Sep 2015 4:51 pm

Some steels are better than others and not brand or year specific.
Just like some Fender Twins are better than others.

chas smith R.I.P. · Post by **chas smith R.I.P.** » 27 Sep 2015 4:53 pm

On my Sho-Bud Super Pro, besides the Kline tuners,I made the rollers and the fingers, on the E9, neck out of bronze.

On my Professional, I added a string lock for strings 5 and 6, which were the "problem" strings.

chris ivey · Post by **chris ivey** » 27 Sep 2015 5:13 pm

Steven Welborn wrote:
chris ivey wrote:what finally happened with the check fraud thing?
gave em your name

don't get that personal attack, dude. was just curious about the fraud on our forum.

Steven Welborn · Post by **Steven Welborn** » 27 Sep 2015 5:17 pm

Ian Worley wrote: I'm not convinced that bearing rollers will make an appreciable difference.

That said, you can get small ball bearings from lots of sources, McMaster Carr, Grainger, etc. They're not inexpensive but you can probably find some for $5-$6 ea. You would need something no larger than about 1/4" outside diameter, then have a grooved (presumably gauged) outer roller sleeve turned out of brass or bronze and have the bearing press fit. If you're lucky you can find bearings slightly narrower than your current rollers and have the outer sleeves turned to match the existing so you won't have to modify the keyhead. Any machine shop, or anyone with a lathe and a small arbor press could do it. Try BSG http://bsgsteelguitars.com/rollers.htm - he would probably do it for you, he would just need to bore the correct inner diameter for the bearings before he parted them off.

Thanks Ian. I'll look into that.I like the idea of pressing the bearing into an outer component avoids grooving the bearing itself.
as for being convinced of a ball bearing roller making an appreciable difference, as I mentioned above re Larry Petrees' BMI, his raises and lowers returned perfectly after installing the bearing rollers from that point on. Why the disbelief?

Jerry Jones · Post by **Jerry Jones** » 27 Sep 2015 5:18 pm

If this occurred after a recent take down and re-assembly, I would suspect you have some new friction points. Over time, machine parts become mated to each other due to a slight friction wear and a take down re-assembly would realign these parts and introduce new friction. I'd compare it to a rebuilt engine that needs a few hours of run time to seat the parts.

Steven Welborn · Post by **Steven Welborn** » 27 Sep 2015 5:24 pm

Jerry Jones wrote:If this occurred after a recent take down and re-assembly, I would suspect you have some new friction points. Over time, machine parts become mated to each other due to a slight friction wear and a take down re-assembly would realign these parts and introduce new friction. I'd compare it to a rebuilt engine that needs a few hours of run time to seat the parts.

that's a good point. Maybe some of that to some degree going on here. But the reason for the take down was due to the problem arising before hand.

Ian Worley · Post by **Ian Worley** » 27 Sep 2015 5:43 pm

Steven Welborn wrote:Thanks Ian. I'll look into that.I like the idea of pressing the bearing into an outer component avoids grooving the bearing itself.
as for being convinced of a ball bearing roller making an appreciable difference, as I mentioned above re Larry Petrees' BMI, his raises and lowers returned perfectly after installing the bearing rollers from that point on. Why the disbelief?

I don't think you could do it any other way. I can't see how you would chuck up and turn a groove directly onto a 1/4" bearing with a 3/32" wide outer sleeve without destroying the bearing and perhaps a finger or an eye too. You'd need a really tiny lathe.

Also, it's not disbelief, my point is just that it's not hysteresis we're discussing here. I've had roller nut issues before and always been able to rectify them through normal maintenance. As noted above, hysteresis is a property of the string itself, not the surfaces it contacts. If the surfaces that the string contacts create unnecessary friction and affect how precisely it returns to a prior state it's a different issue. In isolation a string will always exhibit some amount of hysteresis.

A nut roller doesn't need a roller/ball bearing to operate correctly. My old Chevy V8 crankshaft had solid bearings, they held up for over 250k miles with proper maintenance. As Chas mentioned, bronze is an excellent material for solid bearings.

Also wondering if perhaps you shouldn't just contact Larry Petree and inquire as to who made his rollers, and what all was involved since it seems that his success is the basis for your quest. No point re-inventing the proverbial wheel.

Steven Welborn · Post by **Steven Welborn** » 27 Sep 2015 6:55 pm

Ian, the machinist that made Larrys' rollers has has passed away since. And he actually did groove the outer race of the bearing itself, carefully as far as he could without going through. It worked.
As for the word "hysteresis", it may not be the scientifically correct use of the word for what is occurring here. But I'll try to paraphrase one explanation by E. Bovine as best I can from what I remember in a previous thread: When you lower a string, a certain amount of that string will travel across the roller nut and 'gather' on that side of the nut (left of nut), when the lower is released, not quite as much of the string will return as was before to the right side of nut due to roller/axle friction. Now , if all you have is a lower on that string, no problem... just tune accordingly. Problem is, when a raise is engage after the lower, the opposite occurs, and the string gathers to the right side of nut between the nut and changer. Then when released, not quite as much string will return across the nut due to roller friction. Now , were talking micro differences here of course, but that can make a noticeable difference when your dealing with musical pitch. A metal disk with a hole is RUBBING against the axle, NOT rolling. A ball bearing ROLLS, not rubs. The complete reduction of friction should allow pitch to return accurately the same point whether returning from raise or lower. Like you or someone said, that string tension is pushing down on the roller to cause friction against axle, wanting to push the lube away from the top. Chevy truck crank bearings are fine for moving a truck forward,and those bearings have a continuous feed of oil pumped into them btw, but were talking musical pitches here.

Georg Sørtun · Post by **Georg Sørtun** » 27 Sep 2015 7:12 pm

...and the degree of rotation for the nut-rollers is too small to redistribute the oil back to the part of the axle where it is needed, unlike for the fully rotating bearings in some machinery. A smooth "shark skin" pattern on the axle will help our nut-roller bearings stay lubricated where it matters most.

Jim Park · Post by **Jim Park** » 27 Sep 2015 7:57 pm

Try www.bocabearings.com/‎. I used to buy small bearings for my model RC helicopters from them

Charlie McDonald · Post by **Charlie McDonald** » 28 Sep 2015 2:03 am

Georg, is the etching of the axle done on a bias, that is, 45 degrees off axis?
I'm about to re-string and this sounds like an effective idea (whether I hear a problem or not).

Georg Sørtun · Post by **Georg Sørtun** » 28 Sep 2015 3:22 am

Rubbing grooves at about +/-30 degree angles along the axle, would be ideal. Seen through a powerful microscope the "perfect" pattern might look like this...

Remember, those grooves should not be coarse or deep, so rubbing the axle with steel wool along its length a few times while rotating it slowly with your fingers, until it looks evenly mattish, should be enough to "trap" oil.

The finishing polishing operation shall only remove grades after the rubbing operation. I used a paper with a little toothpaste for final polishing, and the axle is (of course) still looking mattish.

Brian Henry · Post by **Brian Henry** » 28 Sep 2015 3:23 am

Steven with all due respect I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. None of the famous players were bothered by this. Just get that axe together and play it. You can compensate with your bar as the great players have always done!!

Charlie McDonald · Post by **Charlie McDonald** » 28 Sep 2015 5:33 am

Cool. Thanks Georg.
Hysteresis isn't a problem I'm experiencing, but every details helps, and this one appears to be an idea outside the realm of roller bearings,
something that would make lubrication more effective over time.

Steven Welborn · Post by **Steven Welborn** » 28 Sep 2015 8:18 am

Brian Henry wrote:Steven with all due respect I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. None of the famous players were bothered by this. Just get that axe together and play it. You can compensate with your bar as the great players have always done!!

you could say that for cabinet drop as well. "all the great players compensated with the bar" before modern remedies came along. Doug Jernigan once told me that he chose the anti-cab drop model Zum over the hybrid (can't have both on same ax) because he was hooked after playing the one that stayed more perfectly in tune 'as is' and it was a preferred trade off for him. I'll pass your advice along to him. There's mountains, there's mole hills, and there's stuff in between.
But really... this initial post was just a simple quest to begin with, the big ensuing debate over it has now made it seem like "a mountain".
Hasn't anybody heard of 'return compensators' before?

Mike Wheeler · Post by **Mike Wheeler** » 28 Sep 2015 9:20 am

Steven, I've been tracking this thread because it's an interesting topic. I think you've handled all the responses quite well, especially the off-base ones.

To get a serious answer, I'd suggest calling up a bunch of manufacturers and ask them about the rollers you seek. Even though they might not offer them, they might be the most direct path to an answer that you'll find.

Anyway, good luck in your quest.

John Goux · Post by **John Goux** » 28 Sep 2015 9:49 am

Strings returning sharp after a lower, is because of friction, not because of the physical properties of guitar strings. When you lower the tension of the string (pitch), more string will gather in the area between the nut and the tuners. If you have friction, the string will return with more tension between the nut and bridge. That raises the pitch.
This is a well known issue in the 6 string guitar world. Anyone with a stock Stratocaster and a tremelo bar knows the G string will return sharp after a dive bomb. There are easy fixes:
1. Yank the returned-sharp string with your right hand and it returns to 440.
2. Lubricate the nut and bridge to stop the friction.
3. Use a Floyd Rose system with a locking bridge and tuners.
The FR system is full proof with tuning. You can dive bomb all day without ever going sharp. Same string brand and type.
The discussion of "hysteresis" in the steel guitar community as an incurable property of ferrous strings, is missing the point. Yes my E migrates sharp after lowers, and I don't like that. In the short term I can adjust it by hitting my E raise lever or re tuning that string.
But I know this is a fixable mechanical issue. I was sorry to read Lloyd Green aschewed the E lower because of a fixable problem. Maybe not back in the 60's, but certainly nowadays there should be an understanding, that the sharp return of strings is a fixable friction issue, and not some incurable property of guitar strings.
I see some of you have found solutions. Nice work.
John

Steven Welborn · Post by **Steven Welborn** » 28 Sep 2015 9:57 am

thanks Mike! i needed that

Billy Knowles · Post by **Billy Knowles** » 29 Sep 2015 4:44 am

Tom Brumley's Dixie guitar with ball bearing roller nuts.

Steven Welborn · Post by **Steven Welborn** » 29 Sep 2015 9:27 am

just a loose end to tie up here in regards to bar compensation vs mechanical remedy, and a case in which bar compensation doesn't really work out so well IMHO. Where it DOES work fine and dandy: I tune my 1rst string f# to the 5th string B (no beats). If I raise the B to C# along with the 1rst string, I compensate with the bar to be in tune for a good pure sound (no beats). It's no biggie. And it's ALWAYS the same move and it's an easy one considering the space between those two strings. And that 1rst string BTW only has a raise, not both a raise AND a lower, so it's pitch is always exactly the same, therefore so is the bar compensation. NOT FINE AND DANDY CASE: If you have a 2nd string raise (1/2 tone ala John Hughey)as well as a whole tone lower, that 2nd string D# pitch will vary depending on whether your last pull was a raise or a lower. Now, say your doing a common double note harmony riff-- strings 3+4, then strings 1+2, then 5+4(A pedal). Now, before doing that riff, what was the last pull you did on that 2nd string? Was it a Lower? A raise? Can you remember? AND btw those are two adjacent strings where bar slants are a little tougher. How fast is that riff too? Which way to slant the bar THIS time? I'll be willing to bet John Hughey had a return compensator on that 2nd string.

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 29 Sep 2015 10:27 am

Brian Henry wrote:Steven with all due respect I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. None of the famous players were bothered by this. Just get that axe together and play it. You can compensate with your bar as the great players have always done!!

Brian, What great players are you talking about ? The great players I have spent time with are very much into the details of how to correct, avoid or compensate for this and every other issue involved in playing the instrument in tune. That is why they are great.

Jim Pitman · Post by **Jim Pitman** » 29 Sep 2015 6:14 pm

Another approach to reducing hysteresis is to make the roller nut larger in diameter while simultaneously reducing the axel diameter. I have observed this is what Frank Carter does with the Infinity. I measure none on mine.
It's physics - reduce the contact area and increase the length of the lever to overcome stiction.
All I can say to people who think hysteresis is a minor issue is, "You probably never owned a pedal steel with really bad hysteresis."

John De Maille · Post by **John De Maille** » 29 Sep 2015 10:29 pm

Here are the roller nuts on my 76' RusLer.
I don't know if they really help, given that the rotation is minimal in regards to string movement. But, it is a neat feature. They never have bound up or stuck.

Jim Park · Post by **Jim Park** » 30 Sep 2015 2:23 pm

As a postscript to this topic, I discovered something interesting when I changed strings this morning. I cleaned and lubed the rollers and put them back on the guitar. I then decided to check freeness before putting the strings on. To my surprise 4 of the rollers would not turn when even moderate pressure was applied. I then removed the rollers, and flattened the sides with a very fine file and deburred the roller slots. After this treatment, they all rolled very smoothly. I did notice that because of the angle of the string leaving the roller, the rollers tend to rub one side of the key head. Removing that friction would go a long way in smoothing up roller action.

Steven Welborn · Post by **Steven Welborn** » 4 Oct 2015 11:28 am

chris ivey wrote:
Steven Welborn wrote:
chris ivey wrote:what finally happened with the check fraud thing?
gave em your name
don't get that personal attack, dude. was just curious about the fraud on our forum.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your question Chris. I actually did think it was intended to rankle. I find posting sometimes can be frustrating due to things being misinterpreted. It's happened to me now and then if I'm not careful how I word what I want to get across. And I've seen it happen to others quite frequently. Comes with the territory I guess when communication is limited to mere text. Perhaps your question should have been posted in the relevant thread. Anyway, nothing really came of it. These people know how to cover themselves.

The Steel Guitar Forum

source/machinist for ball bearing nut rollers

Ball bearings

roller nuts

Roller bearing nut rollers